The Sunday Funnies

As long as we’re on it, and we will be on it in our next TF post, here is what the Fearless Leader wrote vis-à-vis rape, disintegrating cultures, and the judgment of God:





Notice how he writes with such authority and unction, as though he really holds these convictions. Notice how he leaves the impression that he is committed to biblical standards and that he fears God.

Now notice this blog post that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, uploaded to Blog and Mablog exactly one week after Jamin Wight’s conviction. I republish it in entirety:

Yes, I Know There Are Many Godly Youth Ministers
Topic: Cartoon



Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/19/2006 11:27:27 AM | Link to this post

Here’s the real punch line to the cartoon. Wilson concealed Jamin Wight’s crimes from the membership of Christ Church, Moscow, just as he hid Steven Sitler’s predations. Consequently, when he published this clever piece of art (which, by the way, he drew with his own hand; you can confirm this fact in the combox), all of his rabid disciples would have thought he was ridiculing the modern church, as usual, and implying that the Kult was immune from such carnal hustlers.

Again, notice how he leaves the false impression that his cult is above it all. Notice how he doesn’t acknowledge that his highly esteemed pupil who was studying for the ministry just dodged the mother of all bullets for rape, which was the major point of the plea bargain. (The other point was getting tagged as a “Sex Offender” in the State of Idaho; Wight had one of the best criminal attorneys in Moscow. In fact, I’m close with Moscow’s lone capital attorney who tells me that if he ever had to beat a rap, he would retain Wight’s attorney: “He’s a pit bull in court!”)

Back to point: Do you think that Wilson’s cartoon is funny? If the victim saw it, do you think she laughed? If the father whom Wilson threatened with discipline saw it, do you think he got a kick out of it? What kind of message do you think it sent to the victim family? What kind of message did it send to Wight, whom they never disciplined? What kind of message did it send to Wight’s classmates at Greyfriars Hall? Seriously, what happened to all that posturing about “God’s hand of judgment” being “heavy upon a people”? How does this tasteless image comport with Wilson’s written standards? Is there anything funny about “The Sunday Funnies”? You tell me.

Thank you.

Greyfriars Hallmark

As I write the next post in our “End of the Trinity Fest” series, here is an important website for you to examine. It contains most of the court documents for convicted criminal Jamin Wight, who was one of Wilson’s prized students at Greyfriars Hall when he committed his crimes. Jamin Wight was a member in good standing at Christ Church, Moscow, and Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow (pastored by Dr. Peter Leithart), during his spree and neither church ever put him under discipline.

To be fair, however, I’m not sure why they didn’t graduate him from Greyfriars with honors. He committed no sin that he didn’t learn at the Fearless Leader’s feet. As our Lord says, “A servant is not greater than his master,” and in this case Wight did not exceed his teacher’s example — he matched it. Wilson knows exactly what that means and I’ll leave it there for now. We still have lots more blogging ahead of us.

Wight lived in one of the Kult’s many illegal boarding houses (I don’t believe I’ve gotten near that scandal), which they rely on to house large portions of the student body at New Saint Andrews College (NSA), and he capitalized on his squeaky-clean image as a prospective minister to take advantage of his host family. The most shocking thing about this scandal, however, is not that the Kult did not discipline Wight for his sins — it’s that THEY THREATENED THE FATHER OF THE VICTIM WITH DISCIPLINE. In this interview, the father said,

they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter. “It would be like me getting robbed and the police coming over and arresting me because I didn’t have five locks on the door, only one,” he said. “It was just bizarre.”

One other thing, Jamin Wight spent a summer doing an internship at a now-dissolved CREC church in Southern California. The elders of the church cut his stay short, however, because of improper behavior with a married woman in the church. Apparently the intern made a few late-night visits to her home while the husband was out of town. When the elders discovered this they sent Jamin packing. Again, no discipline. After all, they didn’t want the student to get the wrong impression about sin. Greyfriars Hall is not a ministerial school; it’s a breeding ground for wolves. What else could it be when an alpha wolf leads it?

And the moral of this story is not Jamin Wight’s bankrupt character; it’s that Douglas Wilson corrupts everyone in his sphere of influence; sometimes it’s overt and other times it’s osmosis, but the end result is always the same — a complete loss of moral sensibility in his disciples. They become brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed. They act on impulse, taking whatever they want whenever they want, lacking all sense of right and wrong. In other words, they act just like Wilson.

Read the documents on Greyfriars Hallmark. “Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.” And add its documents to the mountain of evidence we have been compiling to demonstrate that Christ Church, Moscow, is one big massive sewer of corruption.

Thank you.

A Labor of Love

Summer’s here and in my off time I’ve been helping my neighbor build a retaining wall in his backyard, which has cut into my designated time for fully documented anonymous attack blogging. The wall is slow going because we’re using fairly large stones (roughly 75 to 150 pounds each) and it takes about three hours before my dogs start barking, but it looks good. All of this is to say that I missed documenting the anniversary of this important date (June 9, 2005) when an unidentified person sent A Labor of Love to the Internet.

A Labor of Love was written by a Christian who wrote with the assumption that Douglas Wilson is regenerate, which assumption I do not grant. Moreover, I am not aware of anyone who has attempted to produce evidence to support the claim. Nevertheless, it’s a good read for several reasons, let me name just one: A Labor of Love represents the testimony of one more witness in a long line of witnesses who testified to the extreme polarizing affect of Douglas Wilson on the local community. As usual Beelzeblog blamed Emmanuel Goldstein for writing A Labor of Love (he did not), which was his way of saying that since Emmanuel Goldstein is a non-human who deserves to die (according to the Fearless Leader’s unwritten but well-established decree), everyone must ignore everything he says. But I digress.

As you read this, please keep one fact in mind: This letter was published about three months after Douglas Wilson learned that a serial pedophile had raped several lambs from his flock for the last 18 months. In other words, this letter was published 3 months after Wilson learned that God’s judgment had fallen on the depraved culture of Christ Church, Moscow, at least according to Douglas Wilson’s standard, and members of the Kult still did not know about Sitler’s abominations. Furthermore, this letter was published while Wilson was in the middle of his zoning controversy. City Council had just ruled that the Zoning Code prohibited New Saint Andrews College from using downtown Moscow, which put Wilson’s takeover plans at serious risk (Council eventually amended the code to allow NSA by Conditional Use Permit). Lastly, as you read this please note that Wilson was in the middle of an extremely strong PR push to market his first annual but now-defunct Trinity Fest as the zenith of Christian culture, which marketing did not mention his serial pedophile or his convicted child molester, Jamin Wight, whose predations took place at the same time as Steven Sitler’s. Perhaps he should have named it the Trinity Fester.

Take a few minutes to read A Labor of Love.

Thank you.

“I drank the Kool-Aid for seven years and it didn’t hurt me!”

One of the difficulties of hosting a fully documented anonymous attack blog is the amount of time it takes to gather and organize my documentation. Unlike those who have the luxury of hosting fully autonomous self-willed attack blogs, I actually have to document my facts. Of course, the irony is that they declare my documentation “slander” while they produce no evidence or arguments to support their claim. They just assert it. I suppose that’s because they are fully autonomous self-willed attack blogs. Anyway, the last few posts as well as the next few posts are all ground work for an upcoming post on the personality cult at Christ Church, Moscow. I appreciate your patience.

A couple of weeks ago during the brouhaha at Reformed Catholicism, a young man named Tim Enloe posted a passionate defense of Christ Church, Moscow, claiming that the words “cult” and “compound” do not apply there.

Tim Enloe wrote,

Mary Louise, I don’t know what you’ve been reading (I don’t care to read anonymous attack blogs or receive anonymous or vague charges against pastors, regardless of their purported “pastoral” purpose), but I lived in Moscow for 7 years and I have to say this about your “compound” remark. There is a sense of close community, perhaps even of unique community, at work in Moscow, but to call it a “compound” and invoke the word “cult” is more than a bit over the top.

Like any other community under the sun, Moscow has its problems. But if one hasn’t lived there, worshipped there, fellowshipped with them in their homes, I don’t believe it’s appropriate for one to be talking about their problems. And especially not on the basis of tales told by people one doesn’t know about circumstances one is only getting one account of, and that one account in a medium notorious for its impersonal ability to ratchet things up to levels of controversy far beyond what would ever occur in a face-to-face context. I don’t defend everything that comes out of Moscow, and I never did and do not now walk in total, uncritical lockstep with my teachers at NSA — but I lived there, worshipped there, and fellowshipped with many of those there face-to-face for 7 years. Neither “compound” nor “cult” are appropriate words to use of them.

I don’t doubt that this young man really believes what he wrote, but the very credentials he put forward to establish his authority on the matter tell us all we need to know:

• I lived in Moscow for 7 years.


• There is a sense of close community, perhaps even of unique community, at work in Moscow


• But if one hasn’t lived there, worshipped there, fellowshipped with them in their homes, I don’t believe it’s appropriate for one to be talking about their problems.


• I don’t defend everything that comes out of Moscow, and I never did and do not now walk in total, uncritical lockstep with my teachers at NSA


• I lived there, worshipped there, and fellowshipped with many of those there face-to-face for 7 years.

Let’s say that someone lived in a spiritual compound in a non-Christian cult for seven years, during which time the leadership of the non-Christian cult systematically brainwashed him so that he could not discern right from wrong. Even worse, his brainwashing was so efficient that they excised from him his ability to think critically or independently, which meant that he always deferred to his teacher’s sound bites. After seven years of brainwashing, could that person, still in their brainwashed state, be in a position to speak with any authority on the subject? Would they even know if someone washed their brain?

Let’s let the same person — Tim Enloe — answer the question for us. Four years ago (I presume this was part of his seven-year stay in Moscow), during the Southern Slavery scandal, Mr. Enloe posted the following email to Vision 20/20. Read it and tell me if he wasn’t walking in total uncritical lockstep with his teachers at New Saint Andrews College; tell me if his sense of unique community (i.e. peer pressure) didn’t contribute to his unquestioning loyalty to the cause:

From: Solafidian@aol.com
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 14:02 PM
Subject: Re: Slaves vs non slave ownership

So a guy can write a pamphlet expressing an alternative view of Southern slavery, and next thing you know he’s the focus of a full-blown internet Inquisition based on ethical absolutes that aren’t being acknowledged for what they are or from whence they came, and which cause some of their adherents to act like contemporary American culture is the highest form of good that humanity has ever produced. Why, just look at how every age of history and every other viewpoint gets summarily judged by the standards of “tolerance” emanating from 21st century American universities and those who defend their closed-minded, double-standard fulminations about same.

I was going to write an e-mail explaining why cultural imperialism was evil, but it dawned on me halfway through it that it was incredibly stupid to have to write it in the year 2003 AD. I thought we’d gotten past all that hate speech junk. This isn’t the Dark Ages, you know.

Tim Enloe
Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co.

The amazing thing about this post is the way he mimed Wilson’s sound bites without any critical thought whatsoever. Doug said it. I believe it. That settles it. It’s clear, however, that he could not develop substantially the thoughts behind his sound bites. He simply repeated them, by rote, just as he learned them in the compound. And even though he meant (apparently) his tag line, “Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co.,” as a “ha ha” preemptive answer to anyone who might suggest that he appeared quite duped by the Fearless Leader, he nevertheless presented himself as “Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co,” though I would strike the word “Christian.”

SSAIW was not an “alternative view of Southern slavery,” it was racist propaganda written (plagiarized) by two certifiable morons for their mindless disciples, which included Mr. Enloe. I’ve already written that Wilson uses the mythology of SSAIW as one of the critical steps in programming his disciples to accept his universe of make believe: Mr. Enloe stands as living proof of this thesis.

Rosemary Huskey’s response to Mr. Enloe still stands unanswered by him because no one at NSA taught him how to think critically.



Thank you.

Personality Cults

The next installment in our Kult Police State series shall address the subject of “personality cults,” or “the cult of the individual,” which is a political term coined by Karl Marx to describe the philosophical antithesis of communism, though it is commonly used to describe various non-Christian religious sects, such as Christ Church, Moscow, because of the religious loyalty and devotion shown by the adherents to their charismatic leader (witness yesterday’s attack of the monkey boys).

In preparing for this post last weekend, I read a speech delivered by Nikita Khrushchev to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whereat he repudiated his Josef Stalin’s cult of personality. Of course, Josef Stalin was perhaps the most ruthless dictator of the twentieth century (flip a coin between him and Hitler).

If you’re a history buff, this speech offers a vivid peek behind the Iron Curtain of Stalin’s regime from a man who knew all the players as well as many of the victims. More importantly, Khrushchev demonstrates the immediate dangers of any personality cult and how Stalin, with his volatile, untrustworthy character, took his cult to the farthest extremes.

Everyone in Moscow will immediately spot the parallels between Stalin and the Fearless Leader. Outsiders may need more details. If that’s the case, just remind yourself that Moscow is the home of the notorious show trials.

So take a half hour to read it (it’s over 23,000 words). It will help you understand the menace posed by Personality Cults.

Thank you.

Anonymity Excursus: The Kult Police State Part 1

This post is the first installment in a series of essays that consider Douglas Wilson’s claim that the Christ Church, Moscow, is not a well-organized syndicate of thugs that masquerades as a Christian church in order to advance its leader’s geopolitical-ecclesiastical agenda.

Douglas Wilson writes,

He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

First, I want to note that I never made this claim. Wilson is overstating my contention that he has a reputation for retaliating against those who publicly criticize him, and I would like to guess that he distorted my position because he’s interested in honest discourse, but I’m not that stupid.

Second, for this series’ sake I ask you to concede that Wilson has essentially accused me of accusing Christ Church, Moscow, of being a totalitarian state ruled by a ruthless autocrat who exacts vengeance against his critics.

Third, let’s run with it and see if his claim passes the smell test. Let’s take a basic definition of totalitarianism and compare it to the documented facts in Christ Church history. Accordingly,

Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private sectors. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. (Wikipedia)

I propose that we use this definition as a litmus test to determine if Christ Church, Moscow, is a normal church by biblical standards or if it fits the profile of a totalitarian state. Therefore, let’s see if Christ Church as a religious organization has the ecclesiastical equivalent of (1) Secret Police, (2) Propaganda Disseminated Through the State-Controlled Mass Media, (3) Personality Cult (this should be the most difficult to establish), (4) Regulation and Restriction of Free Discussion and Criticism, (5) Single-Party State, (6) Mass Surveillance, and (7) Widespread Use of Terror Tactics. Today we shall consider secret police. You be the judge:

SECRET POLICE
While most members of most Christian churches live to glorify God, Christ Church, Moscow, is much different. To be sure, the one priority that all members of the Kult share in common is the duty to protect their Fearless Leader and his interests, and in this respect all loyal members of the Kult operate as secret police against one another, gathering information for the Fearless Leader.

And Wilson is not beyond gathering information himself. For example, he admitted in another forum that, yes, he had interrogated the five-year-old daughter of a long-time Kult member to see if her father had called Christ Church a cult. Wilson questioned the child alone, with no one else present in the room, against the father’s direct instruction. In fact, the father said, “Douglas Wilson, you are in darkness. The light of God is not in you. You are the leader of a cult and I resign my household’s membership from Christ Church. Now please leave my family alone; we want nothing to do with you.” Knowing Wilson’s thought process, he took this as an invitation to interrogate the little daughter and if she confirmed that daddy called Christ Church a cult, then Wilson could trump up ecclesiastical charges of child abuse against the father. And quite frankly, whatever else is true, any pastor that would question a five-year old to obtain this kind of information only proves by his behavior that he fronts a cult.

But we want to consider the police state of the Kult, so let me share a few eyewitness accounts with you that I’ve picked up over the years. For example, my former neighbor, who is now a former member of the Kult, told me that when he was in Christ Church he restricted certain people from calling him on the telephone at home for fear that one of his children might answer and take a message. He feared that if a person called whom the Kult had identified as an “enemy,” then the possibility existed that one of his children could unwittingly let the name slip while they were playing with other Kult children, which would spell the end of him and his family forever in the Kult. He knew that the other children would notify their parents who would immediately contact the Fearless Leader, who would begin preparations for their public execution.

Another friend of mine, who is also a former member of the Kult, told me that after he had accepted a lateral promotion within the ACCS network of schools, Douglas Wilson sat down with him and his wife to tell him that, since he had accepted a position of leadership, he should not be seen speaking with enemies of the Kult in any context. The Fearless Leader then rattled off a list of persons that he expected this man to shun in public — starting with the Kult’s version of Emmanuel Goldstein — as an expression of his loyalty and he closed his exhortation by saying, “People are watching you.”

I realize that I am not providing documentation for these stories, but that’s okay. We have plenty of documentation below and lots more in the next few installments. The important point that you need to grasp is the climate of fear that pervades the Kult. For example, another friend of mine, who like the others is a former member of the Kult, has said that life in the Kult felt like living in Nazi Germany where you could not confide in anyone for fear that they would act as Thought Police and betray you to the Fearless Leader. This man lost his job at Canon Press during one of the Great Protector’s purges: Douglas Wilson saw him show kindness to an enemy of the Kult in public.[1] One week later he was gone.

Perhaps the best example that proves the Fearless Leader encourages members of the Kult to secretly police one another is the documented instance where Wilson approved of one member of the Kult tape recording a telephone conversation with another member of the Kult. Wilson admitted this in an email to the Kult member whom he had surveilled:

Fourth, Ethan told me after the fact that he had recorded his phone conversation with you, which I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do. Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation, I felt free to listen to it. If he had not done so, I would not have listened to it — a standard which you apparently do not share. The line you took in our phone conversation was mystifying to me at the time, but the fact that your companion [Dr. Atwood’s son, Ethan] was listening in unbeknownst to me makes more sense of the situation. The deceptiveness involved is revealing to me. (dougsplotch)

Wilson’s admissions here are disturbing enough, but first you have to notice how he distances himself from the espionage, writing, “I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do.”[2] He’s implying that he had nothing to do with instigating the surreptitious act, but then he threw his disclaimer out the window the moment he admitted he listened to the tape: “I felt free to listen.” And why did he feel free? Well, he heard it on the tape: “Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation.” It makes perfect sense. He listened to the tape and heard his spy state that someone was potentially listening, which gave the Fearless Leader license to actually listen. But you can’t miss this point: After Wilson had one Kult member secretly tape record another Kult member on the telephone, he immediately turned around and accused the person whom he had just spied on of “deceptiveness.”

This just kills me. Wilson relied on all manner of deception to accomplish the deed when he encouraged one member to entrap another and then he put his hand with the treachery by listening to the tape. Despite these facts he accused the member of his congregation that he betrayed of “deceptiveness.” Amazing. But the point stands: members of the Kult tape record one another to gather intelligence for the Fearless Leader and he documented this totalitarian fact in an email.

I have one last example for your consideration but first let me remind you that in Orwell’s 1984 the story reached its climax when the Party successfully reeducated lead character Winston Smith to betray his lover, Julia, insuring that Winston would give all of his love and loyalty to Big Brother while he accepted the Party’s version of reality. [3]

Nancy Wilson writes:

But what about when the husband is in sin? This is a very important issue. What if the husband has adopted a wrong attitude and is heading in the wrong direction? Is a wife obligated to go along? It all depends. I have often been saddened that we don’t see more Abigails in the church today. She was not afraid to call her husband a fool and to make arrangements behind his back without his permission. . . . If a man is acting foolishly, a woman is foolish to go along quietly. . . But there are times when a godly wife should beseech her husband not to act in a foolish manner. It may involve doctrine. Perhaps she is alarmed that he is being attracted to heretical ideas, whether it is “openness theology” or Roman Catholicism. She should speak to him respectfully about this, but letting him know she cannot follow him there. If she belongs to a godly church, her elders would support her in this. Perhaps he is plotting to create some kind of stink in the church. Abigail would not stand for it. A good Christian wife should go to the elders and ask them how she can be a good church member and a good wife at the same time. She should not simply stand by, hoping that her husband will do the right thing. Nor should she just accept anything her husband does as though he is infallible. If a husband is bad-mouthing his elders, his pastor, or his friends, a godly woman should refuse to go along. She should speak to him privately first, but if he is not receptive, she should go to her pastor or elders and seek their advice. . . . A wife is to be a helper to her husband not a blind follower, and this sometimes includes going past him to get help. God blessed Abigail when she did this. In her case it was abundantly clear what was necessary. In other cases it might require pastoral oversight. But obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute. . . . (Nancy Wilson, “Submission,” Credenda Agenda, Volume 15 Number 3)[4]

I’m not sure that you have to read between the lines on this one; the implication is there for everyone to see: “obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute” because obedience and submission to the Kult is absolute. The Kult’s authority supersedes a husband’s authority, especially in matters of conscience. Like Julia in 1984, you must betray him. As far as the Kult is concerned, Wilson’s intelligence-gathering network creeps all the way into the bedroom. They expect you to report everything.[5]

Now, even if you set aside my handful of stories that I did not document and only considered the ramifications of the two documented accounts I presented, do you believe that they are representative of everyday life in a biblical church, or do they resemble life in a police state? Is it normal for pastors to eavesdrop on their congregation and is it normal for members of churches to tape record their conversations so they can hand the tape to the pastor, or does this look more like the work of secret police operating in a totalitarian state? Or how about the husbands and wives — do pastors normally instruct the wives of their congregation to report on their husbands? What kind of person thinks in these categories? What kind of man obligates the women of his church to submit to him as opposed to their husbands? Can you imagine being afraid to speak your conscience to your spouse about the church government for fear that she might roll on you? Is this normal behavior in Christian churches or is this Orwellian? Do you think Wilson’s conduct and his expectations cater to an environment of love for God and love for the brethren, or do you think it fosters fear and suspicion?

Personally, I think it’s sick across the board; there is no moral justification for this kind of sweeping invasion of privacy. But for other folks it’s just another day in Christ Church, Moscow.

Whatever you may think, however, do not forget this: You must tell the Fearless Leader all your secrets because

BIG DOUGER IS WATCHING YOU.

Thank you.

---

[1] It’s critical to note that these so-called “enemies” are persons identified by the Fearless Leader as enemies because they publicly criticized him. It’s even more critical to note that most of these enemies are devout evangelical Christians.

[2] It really does not matter if Wilson asked him to do it. The fact remains that he did not dissuade the young man from taping the conversation and by participating in the act he approved it. This is more evidence that Douglas Wilson corrupts those under his influence. Moreover, the message Wilson sent to his loyalists by approving of this behavior was loud and clear: Tape recording one another is acceptable conduct in the Kult.

[3] As I reflected on this post, it occurred to me that the similarities between Christ Church’s culture of oppression and Orwell’s 1984 are staggering. But the one similarity that someone needs to develop is the comparison between Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate and the Kult’s imprecatory prayer ritual. It appears that the Fearless Leader’s ultimate goal with his daily imprecations is to sear the names of Kult enemies on Kult members’ brains so that they understand the importance of hating these human beings in public. Along these lines, I had an extended comment exchange with a member of the Kult last week where I noted a chapter called “The Winds of Hate,” in a book titled On Killing, where the author documents the psychological devastation caused by cultures driven by hate. Hate damages the hateful and the hated — but especially the hateful. Can you imagine the injury one suffers when they close their eyes in prayer to beseech the God of all mercy to inflict physical pain on another human being simply because they criticized Wilson in public? These people are really twisted.

[4] Rosemary Huskey’s exchange with Wilson on Vision 20/20 says it all; she is brilliant. But the important point you need to note is that Wilson initially denied that the Kult teaches this standard, writing:

First, Rose simply made up the stuff about making a stink “about the church,” and questioning “decisions of church leadership.” That was not in the column at all. Perhaps Rose has taken a course in research study methods from Quinlan and Ramsey. Oops. I really am trying to live up to certain exacting scholarship standards I just found out about recently — make that Rinlan and Quamsey.

These last two sentences are stabs at the two University of Idaho historians who put the lie to Southern Slavery As It Was. They’re the same men who refused to debate the subject with Wilson. I’m sure it was because of his kindness.

[5] Nancy Wilson’s Credenda column is especially ironic in light of the two emails written by A Christ Church Wife. This godly woman — this Abigail — understood that her husband was fallible and that her pastor was evil. She recognized that a cult leader had blinded her husband’s eyes and was holding her family hostage. She, however, had no recourse. She could not go to her elders and she could not go to her husband.

April Fool

“The folly of fools is deceit.” — Proverbs 14:8

I would be remiss if I let this day pass without noting its high spiritual import to the fool-mongers of the Kult. Indeed, April Fools’ Day stands head and shoulders above all the other days on the Kult calendar. As one person said, in terms of significance, it’s like their Day of Atonement. It probably carries as much weight to them calendar-wise as baptism does sacrament-wise, if that makes sense. However, since I don’t have much time, I will limit myself to documenting two of the more notorious April Fools’ Days in Kult lore.

The first and probably most offensive April Fools’ Day that I want to call to your attention was April 1, 1999, when the Kult leadership executed an incredibly well-devised prank to fool the entire Palouse, including all of the University of Idaho, into believing that the University was holding a lecture series on toplessness, which would be delivered by topless feminist scholars.

Here’s how the Fearless Leader told the story in Credenda Agenda:

By the time you receive this, our local police will probably have forgotten all about it, so a little bragging is now safe, and perhaps it is even in order. But first some background. Our local city council, through a series of ridiculous circumstances, decided to quit restricting female toplessness. The noble senior editor of this journal, encouraged by some winks and nudges from me, not that he needed any, made up a flyer which announced a topless and proud lecture series by topless feminist scholars. The titles of the talks were the typical postmodern hoohah — “Topless Shadows: A Personal Narrative,” “Destabilizing the Topless/Bottomless Duality,” “Breasts as Embodied Intuitions,” you get the drift. Some of our stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking, papered the university with these flyers, and the next morning a bunch of them were faxed all over campus. Now you know that we live in sad days, days when satire is increasingly difficult, and almost impossible. The radio station announced the lectures all day, an instructor out of the women’s center announced the lectures to a class, and the English department (listed on the flyer as sponsor) called the announced location to find out if they were in fact going on.

Well, some authorities at the University of Idaho went sideways, and had the cops out looking for the culprits. When they demanded to see the film from the security cameras at Kinko’s (whence the faxes had been sent), our noble editor contacted the established authorities (Rom. 13), who told him it wasn’t funny. He responded that on the contrary it was, and the next day gave out a press release on how the university was trying to repress the true, the good and the lovely.

Needless to say, lots of people showed up for the non-event, and all this happened on April 1. All in all, it was a bad day for the tight-lipped fundamentalists of the left. (Credenda Agenda, Volume 11 number 3)

Please make careful note of the dougspeak in this narrative: “Some of our stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking, papered the university with these flyers, and the next morning a bunch of them were faxed all over campus.” This really means that a member of the Kult stole a UI letterhead from the Vice President of the University of Idaho so that someone from the Kult could forge a memo announcing the topless lecture series. We know this from the police report, which you can read here on dougsplotch. Moreover, the “stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking” were NSA students, which should remove all doubt about the corrupting influence of Doug Wilson.

You should also notice the way he describes the police investigation, how he leaves the false impression that the Kult cooperated with the police pursuant to Romans 13, which was not the case. The manager of Kinkos was a deacon in the Kult (now he’s a CREC pastor) and he stonewalled the police, refusing to let them see the surveillance tapes. No one that I know knows anything about the “press release on how the university was trying to repress the true, the good and the lovely.” The Lewiston Morning Trib (below), however, reported a press release that threatened a subpoena if Kinkos didn’t cooperate. If you read between the lines, that’s when the Kult leaders stopped laughing and began wetting their pants, which the Fearless Leader doesn’t mention either.

All in all, it was another bad day for the gospel, sponsored, of course, by those irresponsible fatheads of Christ Church, Moscow.



The second April Fools’ Day of Kult lore that I want to call to your attention was April 1, 2005, which was exactly 20 days after Douglas Wilson discovered that a serial pedophile had ravaged the lambs of his flock for the past 18 months. This fact alone should have been cause to lay off the fool’s play and take life a little more seriously. Not so for the Fearless Leader. Life is one big lying joke to him. Here is his blog post from that day:

Big News Topic: Current Events
Now that the papers are all signed, and my attorney says that there is nothing that can be done about it, I suppose this would be a good time to announce that through the generous help of a third party my wife and I have bought the Moscow Food Coop. For me to have been involved in the negotiations publicly would have been obviously counterproductive, but now that the deal is done, I think there is no longer any sense in being coy. At the same time, despite local politics, I want to assure all the regular Food Coop customers that there is absolutely no intention of selling the Coop’s new downtown location to Christ Church, or of diminishing in any way the quality of service that our customers have come to expect.

To understand this, you have to know that Wilson covets all the downtown property in Moscow and the Moscow Food Coop sits smack dab in the middle of downtown, like a hub. Wilson has coveted it for years. Moreover, you can’t go in the Coop without rubbing shoulders with a hippie, which is the exact opposite crowd that attends the Kult. I think it’s safe to say that Wilson despises them as much or more than anyone in the PCA. So he makes this stupid announcement on his blog, knowing that many of the locals keep tabs on him. He was making fun of the climate of fear that he cultivated, which is not funny if he’s after your property.

Local freelance reporter and Coop board member (I think) Bill London posted this to Vision 2020 in response to Wilson:

Doug Wilson, that funny guy, is at it again.

His April Fools joke this year is posted at his website (www.dougwils.com) today (see below). He claims in this post to have purchased the Moscow Food Co-op. The Co-op is owned by its 3,500 members, not some shadowy multinational corporation he guided to a corporate takeover. Doug is not a Co-op member, so he doesn’t even own a tiny portion of the Co-op. It’s just his attempt at “funny.”

I would like to remind Doug that there are two kinds of funny. Funny as in “hah, hah, good joke” and funny as in quite peculiar. He’s sliding well into the peculiar category with this one.

BL

“Funny as in quite peculiar”: Bill nailed it. Think about it: At that time Douglas Wilson had no idea how many lambs Steven Sitler had raped (and he still does not know this), but he had time to play a practical joke on the community. At that time Wilson had not notified his flock of predation (and he still has not warned his flock of predation), but he had time to for foolishness. And presumably, at that time Wilson had not yet completed his six counseling sessions with the serial pedophile whereby he declared him repentant and ready to return to society. But Wilson knew the community didn’t trust him and was suspicious of his land grabbing, so he played off that fear as a joke.

Frankly, Bill London understated it (as is his style). This April Fools’ Day joke was “peculiar” before anyone knew about Steven Sitler, simply because it constituted yet more antagonism from a professed gospel minister against the community. Now that we know about Steven Sitler’s horrifying crimes and Wilson’s unconscionable dereliction of duty, this joke is downright sick.

He may think it funny, just as he got a hoot out of his “topless and proud” gag. But I know this much: none of the victims laughed that day, if they kept abreast of the bilge from Blog and Mablog. No, I’m certain that none of those families in Moscow, Colville, or Virginia yucked it up with the Fearless Leader — “Happy April Fools’ Day, Pastor! By the way, when you get a minute from your busy blogging schedule, can you please tell me what to do about my two-year-old daughter?” And I know God was not pleased either.

But I take comfort knowing that the Lord has not precluded fools from reaping what they sow, which means that one day the Fearless Leader shall face a harvest of unprecedented proportions, because Scripture says,

Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.

Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD,

They would have none of my counsel
And despised my every rebuke.
Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
And be filled to the full with their own fancies. — Proverbs 1:24–31

Thank you.

The End Thereof

Last weekend a dispute erupted over some of Pastor Lane Keister’s comments about Doug Wilson’s doctrinal orthodoxy. Personally, I don’t agree with any judgment that affirms Wilson is a Christian, orthodox or not, but I know that other men do not see with my eyes and they must judge according to the light that God has given them. Nevertheless, I want to consider Pastor Lane’s comments from another angle, by comparing them to statements made by other leaders during this controversy.

For example, in January 2007, Dr. Scott Clark posted an excellent essay on his blog, which included this paragraph:

The bottom line is that I do not believe that I misunderstand Doug. Doug’s on a journey. He was an Arminian. Then he moved into the Reformed orbit. I think he signed the Cambridge Declaration. Now he’s passing through the outer fringes of Reformed Christianity toward another orbit. He’s a talented and articulate fellow and I guess he’ll take some folk with him. My goal is to try to help folks see clearly what’s happening and maybe to keep a few of them from following him to whatever star he’s heading. (“(Reformed) Christianity and (Quasi-Reformed) Revisionism”)

Please notice these three points:

1. Doug’s on a journey.


2. He’s a talented and articulate fellow.


3. He’ll take some folk with him.

Dr. Clark is correct. Wilson is on a journey (from Arminianism to the outer fringes to Guyana and beyond); he is talented and articulate; and he plans to shipwreck as many souls as possible. But notice also that Dr. Clark didn’t pick a fight with Wilson. Indeed, if I read this post correctly, this was his adieu to the Fearless Leader and the Federal Visionists. Please take the time to read it because he makes a strong case for his refusal to engage them any further and, likewise, for warning others against following them.

This takes us to a statement made by Dr. John Piper during a recent interview:

Dr. Piper in your defense of the gospel against N.T. Wright have you found Federal Vision theology of Doug Wilson to be another gospel?

[John] P[iper]: No. No, that’s easy. Doug Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel. I don’t think N.T. Wright teaches a false gospel, just a confusing gospel. Doug Wilson is incredibly bright, but he has people around him who are dumb. I think Doug Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers are. But I am concerned about the trajectory. (“Text and Context Conference: Q & A Session with John Piper, Matt Chandler, and Mark Driscoll”)

This is an interesting answer and there is much more here than meets the eye. First, however, please notice that Piper echoed Dr. Clark’s points:

1. Wilson is incredibly brilliant — “He’s a talented and articulate fellow.”


2. He has people around him who are dumb — “He’ll take some folk with him.”


3. I am concerned about the trajectory — “Doug’s on a journey.”

Notice also that while Piper didn’t pick a fight with Wilson, his words are unmistakable. It’s no accident that he juxtaposed Wilson’s brilliance next to his followers’ dim wits. The point is obvious. Wilson knows that he has surrounded himself with pinheads. How else can you reconcile his genius with their stupidity? Honestly, Mark Horne has the IQ of a banana peel and there couldn’t be more pudding in two heads than Xon Hostetter and David Gray who regularly advance dishonest and incoherent arguments on GB to defend the Fearless Leader. Does anyone really believe that Wilson doesn’t know their lofts are vacant? Of course he does. But morons don’t ask hard questions because they lack the mental capacity to observe plain inconsistencies. To be sure, they need spin to stabilize their equilibrium. And the Great Protector knows this, hence the reason he blows so often with such vehemence. He has to fill those black holes in his universe.


Piper continued: “I am concerned about the trajectory.” Well, that’s a no-brainer; Wilson’s drift (moral & doctrinal) has not occurred in a vacuum. As Dr. Clark observed, you could chart it. More importantly, he’s going somewhere. Brilliant people don’t just wander aimlessly; they establish goals and make plans to achieve them. And Wilson is no different. This explains why, on the one hand, he pads his writings with enough orthodoxy to hold men such men as Piper at bay, and on the other hand he keeps company with such scoundrels as Rich Lusk and Steven “Machen” Wilkins, even using his confederation to shelter them from ecclesiastical accountability. It’s all part of the plan. You don’t think these historic facts are coincidences, do you?

But where is Wilson’s trajectory pointed? Well, he’s on record saying that he wants to “close the distance” between the FVists and NT Wright: “I am not talking about creating distance with someone like Wright on the basis of what might happen, I am talking about how fast and how cautiously we close the distance — and I do think we should close it.” So while Piper believes Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel and Piper believes that Wright teaches a confusing gospel, Wilson understands Wright’s confusion well enough that he wants the FV position to get closer to it.

This takes us to Pastor Lane’s comments that led to no small disagreement last weekend, when he wrote:

My problem with Wilson lies in this: although Wilson says many things that are Reformed in a positive sense, he is not willing to reject the errors of the other FV proponents. I am willing to believe that Wilson holds to justification by faith alone, although he is too ambiguous on the aliveness of faith and its place in justification. He does hold to imputation. But he will not distance himself from any error of the FV, no matter how egregious. That is why, if Wilson were to apply for admission into the Presbytery of which I am a part, I could not vote to approve his transfer of credentials. What I have sought to show is that it is not enough to affirm the truth. One must also reject the errors. This is equally important to affirming the truth.

This strikes me as one of those “half-empty/half-full” observations. Wilson says all the correct things (half full) when he affirms justification by faith alone but he refuses to deny all the wrong things, which is where Pastor Lane sees him half empty. Nevertheless, I can’t think of a bigger slam coming from Lane than when he said he would vote against receiving Wilson into his presbytery. Think about it. Wilson positively despises Lane and the PCA while he thinks he and his CREC are one big mighty vessel of reformation. Could Lane say anything more humiliating to the guitar man than he takes him at his word but would not want him in his presbytery? I think not. WHAP! Pastor Lane body slams Dougzilla.

As the disagreement grew, Lane wrote this:

I was saddened when Doug Wilson signed the FV document. He should not have done so, in my judgment. However, I do not think that Wilson is consistent between his own teachings, on the one hand, and his signing the document, on the other. Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FV’ers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others. . . . I said that rejecting the errors that attack the Reformed faith is equally as important as formulating right doctrine. . . But Wilson has said repeatedly (and demonstrated also, I believe), that, on these two points, he holds to Reformed doctrine. If I am to be attacked for so saying, then so be it. But I have not given Wilson a clean bill of health, doctrinally speaking. (emphasis original)

Notice that apart from not picking a fight with Wilson, Pastor Lane took the exact opposite tack of Clark and Piper. First, contra Piper who said, “Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers,” Lane flagged Wilson’s inconsistencies: “I do not think that Wilson is consistent. . .” Second, contra Clark and Piper, Lane made a distinction between Wilson and his circle of idiots: “Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FVers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others.” But Wilson immediately corrected Lane:

As for my signing the FV document, you have to understand that I was in an awkward place. I drafted the document, circulated it, and was the editor who included all the great suggestions I received. For me to have thrown down at the last minute, refusing to sign it, would have been outrageous behavior, even for me.

I don’t know if this surprised Lane, but I am happy that Wilson showed where his loyalties lay. This admission should put an end to any questions about Wilson’s role in this doctrinal disruption in the Church. He is the point man and he speaks for them even if they have not publicly designated him their official spokesman. So Lane called attention to Wilson’s blurry language:

I think Wilson does hold to justification by faith alone, even if some of his language is ambiguous. The trouble we are having here is precisely that. Some of us wish to say that Doug’s ambiguity means that he doesn’t hold to JBFA at all. Others of us think that he does, even if it is not as clear as it should be.

This may be a stretch, but when Lane contrasted Wilson’s inconsistency and ambiguity with his affirmative statements, he essentially marked the path of Wilson’s trajectory. In other words, he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson claims for himself (and gladly said he believes him) and he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson left open for himself, i.e. his general trajectory.

Pastor Lane isn’t stupid. He can see what Clark, Piper, and the rest of the planet Earth sees, but he doesn’t have to force the issue. There’s no sin in pointing out that the Fearless Leader — that veritable fount of illumination — is inconsistent. And there’s no sin in erring on the side of charity by letting Wilson have it both ways. Who looks more foolish? — Lane for graciously conceding Wilson’s claims and noting his self-contradiction? — or Wilson for acting brilliant while he holds the absurd? This is good.

Wilson is a shrewd snake; he knows he’s inconsistent and he knows he’s ambiguous. He also knows that he’s going somewhere. Don’t ignore this: Wilson runs with the FVists for a reason; Wilson wrote the FV PR statement for a reason; and Wilson uses the CREC to give refuge to the FVists for a reason. All of these events are by design and all of them account for his inconsistency and his trajectory — Wilson is one of them; he believes everything they believe.

Douglas Wilson is deliberately lying about JBFA but Lane is making a record. This means that when Wilson finally bares his fangs, which is inevitable because he cannot remain in the closet forever, he will have to account for this massive pile of deceit in addition to his massive doctrinal shift. And neither Wilson nor the devil himself could deceive their way out of that.

Doug Wilson is playing game. He’s playing Lane for a fool and for his part Lane appears content to take Wilson on one side of his word while not making him account for the other. But one day the game must end. One day Wilson’s trajectory will finish its course. And when his journey finds its ultimate destination, which is somewhere past Moscow in between Jonestown and hell, he and his brain-dead disciples will learn what all of his non-Christian cultic forbears discovered — that the just live by faith and God is not mocked. On that day, however, Douglas Wilson will finally understand the meaning of wisdom as Solomon taught it when he wrote, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Thank you.

New Website

U P D A T E : Sean Mahaffey has written several comments that he wants posted on this website but since he has been consistently rude and deceitful I have exercised my editorial prerogative to censor him. Nevertheless, here is a shortened version of his claims quoted directly from his comments; please check the comments section to learn about my two witnesses who furnished me with their narratives:

I wrote the article in an attempt to dissuade people from smoking marijuana. . . . I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, bought, sold, handled, condoned or recommended marijuana. . . . The Squire was not a school or church newsletter. . . . I started the Squire mailing list from names from the CWSC [Christian Worldview Students Conference] in Virginia. The intended audience was college students and other 18–30 year olds. . . We added the names of friends and family and other names that were sent to us. We only had a mailing list of 400–500. . . . The Squire was under the general oversight of the pastors of the church — at our request they read all the issues before they were published. . . . Pastor Booth was on the school board and taught one class a year at the school (usually Logic). . . . Randy Booth was instumental [sic] in establishing Veritas. Without Randy Booth . . . the school would never have been established. . . . I am not drop-dead certain that no student at Veritas ever received or read a copy of the Squire. . . we printed about 500 copies of each issue and there were some church families on the mailing list. . . . Aaron Booth . . . fell into sin while he was in college. . . . The article was written before the drug scandal. I’m not sure if Aaron read the article, but I know it was sent to a lot of NSA students. . . . I don’t have a copy of any letter about Pastor Booth and I wouldn’t send you anything if I did.

Here’s a new fully documented website named Ganja Vision, which is dedicated to an article written by CREC elder Sean Mahaffey on the biblical arguments for smoking marijuana. Although Mahaffey was not an elder when he wrote this column, he was a teacher at one of the Fearless Leader’s classical Christian schools in the ACCS. Furthermore, I suspect that the incredible irresponsibility he showed in writing this piece for the school paper was the deciding factor in making him an elder.

Thank you.

The Federal Vision Family

“Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again!” — Don Corleone to Sonny

“Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.” — Michael Corleone to Fredo

“Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” — Douglas Wilson to the Federal Vision Family

A week has passed since James Jordan suffered his complete mental breakdown on the worldwide web and as of today none of the Federal Visionists has said boo about his vitriolic tirades, let alone repudiated him for his reprehensible behavior. And if you don’t understand the reason why none of the Federal Visionists have denounced Jordan for his cataclysmic meltdown, then you don’t understand the Federal Vision. I know, I know, the Federal Visionists coined the mantra “No one understands us” as excuse to maintain their hard hearts; but in this case it’s actually true, though you can be sure none will admit it in public.

The reason that no FVist broke ranks with James Jordan for his sweeping judgments and disgusting railings against the Christian church is because the leading FVists are not Christian ministers; they are a family of ecclesiastical gangsters in the middle of a turf war with the Christian church and years ago, Douglas Wilson — the FV mob boss — established the first rule of the FV family: “Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” In this respect the FVists are no different from any other crime syndicate. Loyalty to the family is paramount — it is the greatest virtue. Indeed, they place a higher premium on allegiance to one another than fidelity to anything biblical — whether the Scriptures, the gospel, sound doctrine, or even the Savior. Loyalty to the family at all costs — “even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Wilson understands the importance of a united front. He belongs to the school of thought that says, “Appearance is more important than substance,” which is another way of saying he is well schooled in hypocrisy. This explains why he requires unanimity among his elder board even in absurd circumstances and it accounts for the silence from the FVists whenever one of their own crashes and burns, as Mark Horne has done at least once a month for the past three years. “Loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

But the point here is neither the loyalty nor the silence. The point is the FV family — the FV racket — that the loyalty and silence represent. These men are not Christians endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; they are a very well-disciplined crew of thugs who recognize that they cannot achieve their objective unless they maintain family discipline. And we can’t forget the FV objective either, which is to raid as many healthy churches as possible and bring them under CREC dominion.

The FV is Wilson’s turf war and it’s no different than the zoning controversy in downtown Moscow. Grab as much land as possible — legally or illegally — and call yourself king. Hence his prediction that the CREC will “be bigger than the OPC in a decade”:

Wilson also has a big-picture view of the future. He sees the CREC being a player in the Reformed world in the next few years, and I have to agree with him. His prediction was that it would be bigger than the OPC in a decade. With this in mind, he urged that we cultivate a vision of peace. He urged that we try to work with as many people as possible and that we not try to simply fill our niche. (“Doug Wilson”)

This remarkable statement from the blog of a second-year seminary student. But Wilson can’t realize that kind of growth without pirating a few churches along the way and pirates capture vessels by utilizing the principles of war.

The Federal Visionists intend to pad the CREC by infiltrating healthy churches and splitting them, if they cannot seize them altogether, just as they did to COTK and Living Word Church. And this cannot happen unless they deploy a well-disciplined team of ecclesiastical terrorists who understand the importance of loyalty. Therefore, none of them discusses family business in public and none of them takes sides against a family member.

So when James Jordan unraveled on a global platform, spewing venom and spite right and left, the FV family stuck together. Business as usual. Just another day in the FV mob because “loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Thank you.

“My head! My head!”

Here is an excellent book review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings; it appears in Interpretation, a theological journal published by Union Theological Seminary. Without even opening the commentary, it’s clear from this review that James Jordan shaped Leithart’s hermeneutic. Indeed, reading this makes me cry, “My head! My head!” (2 Kings 4:19).

Review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 62.1 (January 2008) 98–99

1 & 2 Kings
By Peter Leithart
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, Brazos, Grand Rapids, 2006.
304pp. $29.99. ISBN 978-1-58743-125-8.

This commentary on the books of Kings by Peter Leithart is part of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. The aim of this series is to produce commentaries that interpret the Bible using the Nicene tradition as the “proper basis for the interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture” (p. 10). Commentators are chosen for “their expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition,” not for “historical or philological expertise” (p. 10). Commentators use whatever translation of the Bible and method of interpretation suits them. The only unifying element of this series is the premise that “doctrine provides structure and cogency to scriptural interpretation.” (p. 12).

Leithart’s method is rather eclectic. He draws here and there from historical and literary criticism, but typological analysis is clearly his preferred method of interpretation. Typology may have served the early church well, but we are not the early church. Is it really possible to do typology today without the philosophical and hermeneutical underpinnings that dominated the early centuries of Christianity? For Leithart, every use of the number “three” becomes an allusion to resurrection, every body of water a reference to baptism, and every anointing is messianic. The most tenuous of similarities lead to typological comparisons: David/Jacob; Adonijah/Adam; Solomon/Joshua, Solomon/New Adam, Solomon/Christ; Jehu/Christ; sacrificial animals/Israel, ritually clean wild animals/Gentile “God-fearers”; Saul/Ahab; Jesus/Judah; Elijah/Jesus; Elisha/Jesus; Elisha/Joseph; and judgment against Ahab’s house/eschatological judgment of the world/judgment passed against all nations in the cross of Jesus. No quotation better sums up his approach than “Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also, Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church” (p. 172). I was amused to discover that Elisha’s floating ax is a sign of Christ’s resurrection (pp. 200, 203) and that “the inclusion of Gentiles into the new Covenant is signaled symbolically by many of the apostles being [Jewish!] fishermen” (p. 73).

In addition to spurious typologies, Leithart often uses the biblical text to leap into contemporary discussions that defy any logical connection to the book of Kings, e.g., a discussion of church/state/secularity/Locke with the notice that Solomon built other buildings (1 Kgs 7:1–12); modern and Christian views of the self and the condemnation of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:1–43); public/state/church relations and the Queen of Sheba’s visit (1 Kgs 10:1–29); Pope John Paul II’s speech on the culture of death and the Elisha stories (2 Kgs 4:1–44); and rationalists’ views of Jesus and Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kgs 9:1—10:36).

Other problems with this book include: misrepresenting his sources (e.g., Walsh, p. 43; Nelson, p. 69; Blenkinsopp, p. 227); the anachronistic use of the term “Gentile(s)” throughout the book; a superficial discussion of violence and God; an odd discussion of idolatry, chiasms with no point, a frightening view of God as an “equal opportunity trapper” (p. 180), the nature of God and evil; God as trickster, and vengeance against the wicked as “dear to Yahweh’s heart” (p. 223). Space prevents me from elaborating further. I have gained a much greater appreciation of the historical-critical method and of the literal sense of the text from reading this commentary. The literal sense is, after all, what God inspired the author to actually say and it contains enough theological depth that I do not have to imaginatively reconstruct the “hidden meaning” or make artificial connection where none exist. I am also now more firmly convinced that commentaries on the Bible should be left to biblical scholars.

Pauline A. Viviano
Loyola University
Chicago, Illinois

On a personal note, I have several friends who have Peter Leithart’s knife ware stuck firmly in their backs. And they don’t wear it well. Liethart operates as one of Wilson’s silent assassins, befriending members of the Kult who are suspects in Wilson’s paranoid mind. Leithart counsels them. Prays with them. Shows kindness to them. And then reports their every word back to Wilson, who sees to a bullet in the back of their heads, shot in the darkness of Anselm’s basement. Leithart was a primary instrument in this family’s demise. What a friend.

At one time you could say that Leithart brought detergent to Moscow to help sanitize Wilson’s PR, but you can’t disinfect raw sewage without spillage contaminating your person; you can’t bring sanity to the insane; and in the end St. Paul’s axiom holds true: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” If Peter ever had any good, it’s all gone now. So on that note, here’s a king whose end Peter Leithart should contemplate: “And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.” (Jer. 52:10–11.)

Thank you. (HT: Anon)

“Spaceship Moscow”

The latest Auburn Avenue high jinks furnishes me with an opportunity to plug this email written by Dr. Tom Roche, which I lifted from the BB Warfield list (fully documented anonymous attack bloggers don’t ask for permission to lift emails from public lists):

Re: [bbwarfield] From the Auburn Avenue Lampoon

It doesn’t sound like anything very new — in Credenda Agenda, for instance, Doug Wilson and his associates have long been explicitly noted for using hard, biting satire to respond to critics, often without even any attempt to answer the substantive arguments of said critics, and Wilson has written at least one essay specifically defending and bragging about this policy. Obviously, when you do not have a serious argument to rebut your critics, yelling and screaming at them and making fun of them will do, right?

Dr. Tom Roche
Norton, MA
Member — Lakeville Christian Fellowship

I call this to your attention because one Dr. Thomas Roche wrote an excellent essay called “Meet the Theonomists,” which was his farewell to theonomy and all its fruit loops. I do not know if the same man wrote both pieces, but I highly commend “Meet the Theonomists” because Dr. Roche nailed it eight years ago, predicting with incredible foresight Dougzilla’s mammoth influence on the Reformed world:

It may seem pretentious in the extreme for a self-taught former guitar leader, barely 40 years old, and Reformed for a period better measured in months than years, to start to try to export the Reformed faith, and build a national ministry presence in the Reformed orbit, but that is what Wilson did. . . . Clearly, it is obvious to me that Wilson and his associates not only see themselves as theonomists, but that they are eager to be the new primum mobile of this movement, complete with their visions for courtship, schooling, and church, in the post-Rushdoony era fast approaching. They are not actively hostile to Sandlin and the current Chalcedon crowd, not by any means, but they are rivals. Indeed, in my opinion Wilson’s is a textbook case of how to embrace a worldview and come from out of nowhere to establish yourself as a leading contender for movement leadership and a force that people think of when they consider said movement. As I said above, Wilson and his associates in Idaho constitute a colossos, and they are not going to fall into the sea anytime soon.

If you don’t read the whole essay, which is well worth your time, then at least read the subsection “Spaceship Moscow” for its insight. By the way, the Sandlin reference just kills me.

Thank you.

Speaking of EEF: Groupthink

I’m preparing a series on the origin and history of the CREC (which is incredibly colorful for only one decade of high jinks), and in my research I discovered a fascinating “position paper” written by a student in Wilson’s Greyfriars’ Hall ministerial program, which he established to train men for ministry in the CREC. If you scan through any of these papers, the first thing that will grab you is the students’ obvious regurgitation of Wilsonisms in lieu of well-reasoned arguments. This indicates to me that Greyfriars’ Hall is a cloning factory designed to replicate its founder rather than actually train men to serve.

Anyway, the paper caught my attention because it was written by a young man named Jerry Owen, whom the Kult recently ordained and sent to Trinity Church (EEF) in Kirkland, Washington, to help shore up all that leaky comradery on the comradeship. Eleven officers in four years is some serious seepage, which may account for Mr. Owen’s subject. I do not know this, but I suspect he wrote this paper because he anticipated a call to Kirkland. There is no date on the paper.

Now, before you read it, please note the definition and symptoms of “groupthink,” which is a term coined by Dr. Irving L. Janis. Wikipedia states:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight. . . .

Causes of groupthink
Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: “It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition” (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

• Structural faults in the organisation: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology.


• Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley’s three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

• Directive leadership.


• Homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology.


• Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

Symptoms of Groupthink
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.


2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.


3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.


4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.


5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty.”


6. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.


7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.


8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Now read Jerry Owen’s pastoral position paper titled “Sessional Solidarity” and let the stunning absence of critical thinking shock you. It looks like it was written for Brainwashing 101 — the Making of a Monkey Boy. This is what Wilson instills in his disciples. This is the fruit of his ministry. These are the rubber stamps he’s creating to minister in the CREC. And he sent this mindless robot to EEF to help repair the ruins. “Pass the Kool-Aid!”

If I get time, I’ll write a post matching the formula for groupthink to Owen’s statements. Until then, here’s a very helpful essay called “Groupthink: A Sinister Snare for Elders and Congregations Alike” from the Chalcedon website (warning: most of Chalcedon should be read with extreme caution and discernment).

Thank you.

You’d Think He’d Get the Hint

Since I mentioned Rev. Jason Stellman earlier, let me share another story related to the area where he’s planting a church.

Trinity Church in Kirkland, Washington, is a charter member of the CRE (now called the CREC and since we’re on it, Trinity Church used to be called Eastside Evangelical Fellowship or EEF). And as a charter member, EEF enjoyed some success for its first five years in the confederation. Things changed, however, in 2003 when serious doubts about the CRE’s founder began creeping into the minds of EEF’s leadership. And very slowly, one officer after another began resigning their office and their membership from EEF, and since 2003 they have lost 5 deacons and 6 elders.

Here’s the catch. While some of these men stepped down for personal reasons, most of them cited concerns over the church’s direction and some of them specified the unhealthy influence of the CREC’s founder as their primary reason for leaving. EEF used to have 300 to 400 members but now they’re down to 75 to 150 (depending on the source). Call it addition through subtraction or church growth CREC style. But whatever you call it, you’d think the CREC’s founder would get the hint.

Nevertheless, I am thankful that God sent Pastor Stellman to Washington because I am sure that his Calvary Chapel background combined with his seminary training has helped minister to a few of these wandering sheep. May God bless them all.

Thank you.

Branch Dougidians

In a weird sort of way this is the perfect time to relate this story.

Wilson devotee Andy Dollahite just posted a comment on Green Bagginses that places great emphasis on the word “BRANCH” as opposed to “sap.” So as long as we’re talking about new words, a couple of years ago Evan Wilson (Beelzeblog’s brother) coined the name “Branch Dougidians” to describe the Christ Church Cult.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is both funny and ironic, and I thought you might like to hear about it.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part III: The Great Protector

I hoped to work this into another post at another time, but given the present circumstances now’s as good as time as any. About 18 months ago Douglas Wilson filed a frivolous complaint with the Moscow Police Department that alleged someone had vandalized his home. Despite furnishing no evidence of any crime, the Bishop of Moscow asserted that, included among these alleged acts, someone placed a used condom in his mailbox. Furthermore, the Great Protector identified in writing the names of four possible suspects (three of them friends of mine), alleging that they publicly criticized him and his church, which in his mind meant that they would therefore also commit a defiling felony.

This incident created no small stir in Moscow because as a high-ranking police officer told me, “I don’t know why he put any names there, half the town hates him.” Not ironically, one of the persons that Wilson identified teaches Sunday school at the church where the Assistant Police Chief serves as a deacon. Ooooops.

Regardless, I note this historic fact because it constitutes one more reason for anyone interested in honest discourse on this matter, such as me, to leave their name out of the conversation rather than incite the Fearless Leader to commit a random act of defamation. He has demonstrated that when it comes to defending his “good” name, he will stoop to all-time lows in order to soil someone else’s.

Thank you.

Point of Order

Beelzeblog posted the following comment on Green Bagginses in response to this comment here:

Douglas Wilson said,
December 23, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Point of order? Who is moderating this thread? Is the allegation that Christ Church is cult-like within the bounds that have been set for discussion here?

But as long as we are on the subject, you may rest assured that if you attend a church where the sanctuary is emptied two minutes after the benediction, and the parking lot is empty five minutes after that, you will never have to answer the charge of a cultish love for one another.

Memo to Beelzeblog:
No one compared your cult to other non-Christian cults because of your “cultish love for one another.” Rather, one of the similarities noted between your cult and typical non-Christian cults was your “antagonistic and critical outlook toward unbelievers and the majority of churches.” Perhaps you deem this well-documented antagonism towards others the same as “cultish love for one another,” but most people on the receiving end of your “cultish love” probably disagree. Ask Robert Dickow. Other than that, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas.

Thank you.

Characteristics of a cult: Monkey boy see, monkey boy do.

Two weeks ago the local listserv, Vision 20/20, heard about monkey boy Mike Lawyer’s apology to Bob Mattes. Most of the locals took it as I did, which is to say they didn’t believe a word of it. One guy wrote, “And the real bonus to all of this is that the dupes on the other side are actually buying it.” Like me, they’ve witnessed too much of Wilson’s abusive antics to ever grant him the judgment of charity. But I want to remind you of something that Lawyer wrote in his so-called apology:

Fourth, there has been some discussion about whether I said anything about going after you with the Air Force or the Pentagon. I don’t remember saying or writing anything about that. I don’t think that ever entered my mind. If, I did say anything like that you need to know that I had and have no intention of doing anything with regard to your job. That would be worse than reprehensible. (December 7, 2007, emphasis added)

I call this to your attention because of something that happened on the listserv just two days after Lawyer apologized, and you have to remember that Wilson and his monkey boys police the dialogue on Vision 20/20 no less than they police it elsewhere.

On December 10, someone generated a thread on 20/20 discussing Christ Church’s reputation for abusing former members of the Kult, as well as certain members of the community. A gentleman named Robert Dickow contributed to the thread and it’s important to note that, to my knowledge, Mr. (Dr.?) Dickow has never been a critic of the Kult. I do know that for the most part, he has stayed away from those threads. Nevertheless, he posted the following email to the listserv (if you don’t read the whole list, please jump to the end of the list):

[Vision2020] Characteristics of a cult
Robert Dickow dickow at uidaho.edu
Mon Dec 10 08:49:15 PST 2007

Hi all, A minister friend of mine in England provided me with this rather comprehensive list of characteristics of a cult (or “destructive group” — defined more generally). Does this stuff remind you of anything?

Bob Dickow, troublemaker

Characteristics of A Destructive Group

While not all groups exhibit all these traits, destructive groups will have many of these characteristics and attitudes:

• Authoritarian hierarchal control;
• Black and white thinking: either or, we they, us them;
• Centralized power structure;
• Child abuse and neglect;
• Competition with other members or with outsiders;
• Conflicting opinions viewed as moral assaults and disloyalty;
• Control of information within group environment;
• Criticism of group, system or leaders is discouraged;
• Different beliefs or ideas are perceived as threatening;
• Discrimination (economic, emotional and psychological): race, gender, age, religion, politics;
• Effusive praise and flattery for leaders;
• Enemy making, a common enemy outside the group: other business groups, other religions, other countries, other life styles, other races;
• Fear (or feelings of guilt) about the prospect of leaving the group;
• Feelings of superiority and exclusiveness;
• Gender-based abuse in any form;
• Group becomes like a family and is more important than individual’s family and outside friends;
• Group has the “truth” (the answers) others don’t;
• Group (system) mission is more important than the individual;
• Group’s doctrine repeated over and over, lots of repetitious lectures and meetings;
• Group leader(s) are looked to for answers involving personal choices in life;
• Labeling: Dissenting members, other groups, and different belief systems are given negative labels/names;
• Large pay and power gaps between members and leaders;
• Loaded language: the group has its own clichés, jargon and slogans that become simplistic explanations for complex situations;
• Missionary consciousness: converting others to group ideology, product, beliefs, trying to persuade others to be like “us”;
• Need leader(s) permission for everything;
• Overuse of plural pronouns: we, us, they, them;
• Peer pressure: non group ideas receive icy silence, ridicule, or condemnation;
• Propaganda used to persuade members and internalize group ideas;
• Public humiliation or embarrassment in any form;
• Public sharings, testimonials, confession, witnessing;
• Scapegoating within or outside the group;
• Secrecy between members or between different levels of a group’s structure;
• Selfishness is putting yourself above the group;
• Strict dress codes, everyone looks alike;
• Suppressing legitimate feelings when they do not fit the group’s mind set;
• The need to be like leaders or like others in the group;
• There is always something to do, excessive business;
• There is a group explanation for everything;
• Thought control: there are “good” and “bad” thoughts;
• Unquestioning obedience to authority.
  

Emotional and Psychological Aftereffects From Membership in a Destructive Group:

Note: Aftereffects will vary depending on the specific type of group and the length of time spent in the group.

• Feelings of guilt, shame, and self-blaming;
• Difficulty making decisions and simple choices.
• Excessive doubt;
• Short term memory loss;
• Anxiety and panic attacks;
• Depression and anger;
• Loneliness and feelings of detachment and isolation from others;
• Loss of self-esteem;
• Lack of self-confidence;
• Difficulty concentrating and focusing attention;
• Inability to think critically and “uncritical passivity;
• Posttraumatic Stress:



Flashbacks including images, thoughts, and perceptions.

Recurrent nightmares or distressing dreams.

Efforts to avoid places or people that arouse memories of the group.

Significant diminished interest in important activities.

Sense of a foreshortened or non-existent future.

Irritability and angry outbursts.



• Hyper critical of others, other ideas, other philosophies, other life styles;
• Loss of a sense of self and identity;
• Difficult or impossible to stop mental or other group ritualistic practices;
• Feelings of emptiness and loss of a unique mission in life;
• Disassociative episodes, floating, feeling spaced out;
• Afraid to join other groups or make commitments;
• Difficulty forming a new value system or philosophy toward life;
  Nervous tics — often induced by meditative techniques used in the group;
• Fear of the group;
• Estrangement (also while in the group) from family and former friends;
• Difficulty making and expressing opinions.

No sooner did Mr. Dickow post this email (which never identified Christ Church by name) than one of Douglas Wilson’s most virulent monkey boys sent this email to Mr. Dickow and his superior at the University of Idaho (he has done this to several people in the last four years). And please notice the response time: Farris sent this email within 18 minutes of Mr. Dickow’s post:

- - - Original Message- - -
From: heirdoug at netscape.net
Sent:Monday, December 10, 2007 9:07 AM
To: Robert Dickow
Cc: Kevin Woelfel
Subject: Non Official use of University Property and Computers.

Mr. Dickow,

I see that you posted your attempt at joining “the group” on Vision 2020 this morning utilizing your university computer. Is this post part of the music functions of the Lionel Hampton School of Music?

If it is personal time that you are spending doing this sort of activity maybe you should re-read your rules and regulations pertaining to the proper use of Government property.

I have attached the post with your University of Idaho email firmly attached at the top of the page. I was curious as to when works starts over at the U of I?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Doug Farris
Heirloom Electric.

But Farris didn’t do his homework; he just shot off before he had his facts (which is common for him). Here is Mr. Dickow’s public response to Farris:

[Vision2020] FW: Non Official use of University Property and Computers.
Robert Dickow dickow at uidaho.edu
Wed Dec 12 22:49:34 PST 2007

Mr. Farris:

While there are explicit laws applicable to contacting someone’s employer or supervisor with the aim of undermining the employment or status of an individual with regard to their employment, there are no laws or policies against sending email the way that I do. My outgoing mail in this case came from my home, while I was enjoying my morning coffee and correcting papers, on my personally owned computer, and the mail passed through Turbonet.com’s smtp servers — an independent IPS — and not directly through any state-owned servers or equipment or software of any kind.

Robert Dickow

So while monkey boy Mike Lawyer made concessions to Bob Mattes for PR’s sake, Wilson’s monkey boys, who you would think answer to Lawyer’s authority or at least follow his example, continued their antics here in Moscow. Monkey boy see, monkey boy do.

Wilson, by your own standard you and your vicious disciples are “worse than reprehensible.”

Thank you.